6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Covasna.
7.  The applicant, a nurse by profession, fell pregnant in January 2002. The development of her pregnancy was monitored by Dr P.C., a gynaecologist working in the Covasna Town Hospital, the same hospital as the applicant.
8.  While she was in the sixteenth week of pregnancy, the foetus was diagnosed with hydrocephalus.
9.  Following a consultation with her doctor, it was decided that the pregnancy should be interrupted.
10.  On 13 May 2002 she was admitted to the Covasna Town Hospital. On the first day of admission she was put on a drip and medication was infused in order to induce abortion, but to no avail. The next day, concentrated glucose was injected into her stomach with the same purpose of inducing abortion. After the injection, the foetus stopped moving. On 15 May 2002, around midnight, she began to have a fever (39 degrees) and shivers, which lasted until the morning. She was not seen by a doctor during this time. She was only given painkillers.
In the morning, while she was still in bed in the ward and without being taken to the surgery room, she expelled the foetus. She then started bleeding profusely. Despite the fact that two curettages were performed on her, the bleeding would not stop and she was diagnosed with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). The doctor then decided to transfer her urgently to the County Hospital, located in Sfântu Gheorghe, some thirty kilometres away. Although she was in a critical condition, during the transfer she was assisted only by a nurse.
11.  When she arrived at the County Hospital, the doctors there had to proceed with a total hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy in order to save her life.
12.  After consulting several specialists, the applicant formed the opinion that Dr P.C. had committed serious medical errors in treating her.
13.  She therefore lodged a complaint with the Covasna County College of Doctors. The County Counsel of the College of Doctors delegated the assessment of the matter to a doctor from Sfântu Gheorghe County Hospital.
14.  On 18 September 2002 the College of Doctors reached the following conclusions:
(i)  the termination of pregnancy had been correctly indicated;
(ii)  as regards the injection of hyperbaric glucose solution, it was found that it could be done in two ways: vaginal or abdominal. The latter procedure ensured better hygiene conditions, but it required a very precise localisation of the placenta by ultrasound scans; these scans had not been found in the applicant’s medical records. It was also recommended that the injection of the substance be monitored by ultrasound. This method required the written consent of the patient, after prior notification of the possible risks and complications. The medical records did not include a consent signature or information as to the clinical investigation of any abnormalities by the ultrasound laboratory;
(iii)  DIC was not a direct consequence of an abdominal injection, but it represented a rare, very serious complication arising from this method; and
(iv)  taking into account that the diagnosis of DIC had been correctly detected in time to allow the applicant to be transferred to the county hospital, with the result that her life had been saved, no medical negligence could be identified.
It was noted that there were some procedural failures in the handling of the case: the patient’s signature was missing on the consent form; an ultrasound description of the location of the placenta was missing; and a summary of lab test results was also missing.
Taking into account the Town Hospital’s facilities and human resources, it was recommended that potentially risky cases should be treated in medical establishments which possessed the necessary facilities to deal with complications.
15.  On an unspecified date in 2002, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against Dr P.C. containing two charges: grievous unintentional bodily harm and negligence in the conduct of a profession. In a statement given on 19 November 2002, she joined a civil claim to her complaint.
On 25 November 2002 the investigating officer ordered a medical expert report to be prepared by specialist medical experts from the Covasna County Forensics Department and from the County Hospital.
16.  On 4 December 2002 a medical expert report was issued by the Sfântu Gheorghe Forensics Department. This report concluded that no medical negligence had been committed, noting that the method chosen for inducing the abortion could be performed in any gynaecological hospital unit. Even if the medical records had not included the results of a lab test, this did not exclude the possibility that a test had been done but the results had not been written down. It was also underlined that the diagnosis of DIC had been quickly determined and that any delay in establishing this diagnosis might have rendered saving the applicant’s life almost impossible.
17.  On 15 January 2003 the applicant lodged her objections to the medical expert report with the investigating authorities. She noted that she had not been consulted with regard to the objectives of the report and that in any event it was incomplete, even when compared to the questions formulated by the police. She wanted the medical expert report to answer the following questions:
(i)  whether there were other medical methods available for interrupting the pregnancy which presented less risks and which did not entail endangering her life;
(ii)  whether the chosen method presented risks and, if so, what the treating physician’s obligations were before applying this method and whether the doctor had complied with those obligations;
(iii)  whether the medical procedure was urgent or whether there had been time to direct her to another, better equipped, hospital unit;
(iv)  whether the use of ultrasound might have influenced the outcome of the procedure; and
(v)  whether subjecting her to a total hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy could have been avoided if she had been hospitalised in a medical establishment which possessed the necessary facilities to handle a diagnosis of DIC immediately after it was detected.
18.  On 27 March 2003 the Târgu Mures Forensics Institute issued an opinion (aviz) on the case. Its conclusions were as follows:
(i)  the case file did not include medical information which could confirm the diagnosis of hydrocephalus with certainty;
(ii)  in the case of medical procedures for interrupting pregnancy later than the fourteenth week, the hospital’s standard procedure required that a medical form be filled in and signed by two specialist doctors and by the hospital director. This document was not found in the medical records;
(iii)  providing information to a patient in advance of treatment was compulsory. For certain procedures that entailed risk, the written consent of the patient was required. This document was not found in the medical records;
(iv)  prior to the procedure being carried out, lab tests had to be carried out. The results of such tests were not found in the medical records;
(v)  the haemorrhaging following the procedure could also have been caused by the rupturing of one or more blood vessels during the curettage, particularly taking into account the fact that the post-operative report had mentioned a haemorrhagic infiltration. The medical records did not include an ultrasound description of the localisation of the placenta; and
(vi)  the diagnosis of DIC was not confirmed by the lab tests, as there were no such results included among the medical documents submitted to the institute.
19.  On 16 April 2003 the prosecutor attached to the Covasna County Court, noting that based on the two medical reports it could not be precisely determined whether there had been any medical negligence which could trigger criminal liability on the part of Dr P.C., asked the Mina Minovici National Forensics Institute (“the Forensics Institute”) to review all the medical reports and to issue an opinion from a scientific point of view on the medical acts performed in the case.
20.  The Forensics Institute issued its report on 26 January 2004. It confirmed the conclusions of the report of 4 December 2002 and thus excluded any medical negligence. It nevertheless observed that the doctor had failed to discuss the proposed procedure and the possible complications with the applicant and her family and to obtain her signature expressing her written consent to the proposed procedure.
21.  On 17 February 2003 the prosecutor decided not to bring criminal charges against the practitioner concerned. This decision was confirmed by the supervising prosecutor and by a final decision of the Covasna County Court of 29 September 2004.